SUMMARYThis report analyses the way residents of Australia’s seven capital cities (the six state capitalsplus Canberra) have travelled to work over the last 35 years. It uses data from the census,which has included a question on the mode of transport used to travel to work since 1976.

Key findings• The number of cars driven to work each day in Australia’s capital cities has nearly doubledsince 1976, from 2,027,990 to 3,942,167. Just under two-thirds of the increase is due togrowth in the workforce; the remaining third is due to a shift away from more sustainabletransport modes: public transport, walking and car-pooling.• After two decades of rapid decline, public transport usage rates commenced a revival in1996. The revival began slowly, but the five years to 2011 saw the biggest increase in publictransport mode share seen since 1976. There has been a corresponding fall in the share ofworkers travelling by car, although the fall in the car driving rate has been dampened bycontinuing declines in car-pooling. Adelaide, Canberra and Hobart have missed out on thispublic transport revival.• The revival of public transport has occurred mainly on rail systems, which have recoveredthe ground lost during the two decades of decline to 1996. The share of workers travelling bytrain is now higher than at any time since 1976, and in Perth is three times as high as 35 yearsago. Buses and (in Melbourne and Adelaide) trams have been less successful, with currentusage rates still less than half those of 1976.• Walking is the most sustainable of all travel modes, and makes a significant contribution towork travel in Hobart, Canberra and Sydney. Walking receives little support from policymakers, but despite this, walking rates increased in the decade leading up to the 2006 census.However, walking rates have declined since 2006 in all cities except Canberra and Perth,suggesting that a renewed policy effort is required to improve conditions for pedestrians.• Cycling is of negligible importance as a travel mode for work trips in all cities exceptCanberra. It is not clear that increases in cycling have come at the expense of the car, sincehigher cycling rates are usually accompanied by lower walking rates. Cycling receives muchmore attention from policy makers than walking, even though it plays a much smaller role inthe journey to work: one possible reason is that cycling is by far the most male-dominatedtransport mode, reflecting the gender composition of the transport planning profession.• Despite the publicity devoted to its transport problems in recent years, Sydney is Australia’ssustainable transport capital, with by far the lowest mode share for car driving, the highestshare for public transport and above-average rates of walking. More cars are driven to workeach day in Melbourne than Sydney, despite the latter’s larger workforce. Public transportgrew rapidly in the five years to 2011, reversing a decline over the previous five years.Despite this, the state’s infrastructure advisory body is recommending that funding beredirected from rail to road, based on projections that the census data has shown to beerroneous.• Melbourne has the second-highest public transport mode share, but the lowest rate of carpooling and below average rates of walking: as a result, car driving is higher than in Brisbane.Melbourne has experienced the fastest growth in public transport mode share of all sevencapitals since 1996, but had the most rapid decline in the two decades before then: becausethe earlier decline was much greater than the recent increase, Melbourne had the biggestdecline in public transport usage, and the biggest rise in car driving, over the 35 years since1976, except for Hobart. Given the recent revival in public transport, it is strange that theVictorian government’s top transport priority is an as-yet-unfunded east-west road tunnelestimated to cost between $12 and $15 billion. No serious analysis has been presented tojustify this project, which if it proceeds would likely put a stop to the revival of publictransport.• Census figures also cast doubt on recent rail patronage figures from Sydney and Melbourne.Travel to work by rail in Sydney grew faster between 2006 and 2011 than publishedpatronage data, while travel to work in Melbourne grew more slowly. This suggests thatpatronage estimation methodologies may have underestimated rail patronage growth inSydney and overestimated it in Melbourne.• Brisbane has the second-lowest rate of car driving among the seven capitals, and has alsoexperienced a revival of public transport over the last three censuses. However, the growth inpublic transport over the last five years has been slower than in Sydney, Melbourne and Perth:indeed, rail usage rates are now higher in Perth than in Brisbane. Public transport growth hasbeen held back by the City of Brisbane’s large program of tunnel, bridge and motorwaybuilding.• Adelaide is Australia’s ‘car capital’, with the highest rate of car driving among the sevencapital cities. This is the result of low public transport usage and low rates of active transport(walking and cycling). In the five years to 2011, Adelaide missed out on the public transportrevival that occurred in other larger capital cities: public transport mode share stagnated,while both walking and cycling rates declined. These trends are the result of the abandonmentover the last 30 years of the Dunstan government’s pro-public transport policies.• Perth has had the most impressive turnaround in public transport of any capital city duringthe period covered by this study: it is the only city where public transport mode share ishigher than in 1981. A concerted community campaign, backed by skilled planning andbudgeting, has revived the city’s rail system, which now carries more passengers thanBrisbane’s. This success suggests that Perth can be a model for other Australian cities,particularly Adelaide.• Canberra has experienced a sustained decline in public transport, and a steady rise in cardriving, for the last two decades (apart from a temporary reversal during 2001-06). Thecurrent car driving rate is the highest ever recorded, something that has not occurred in anyother capital city except Hobart. Public transport mode share actually declined slightly in thefive years to 2011: Canberra was the only one of the seven cities where this occurred. Theproblems are the result of poor transport policies, which have focussed on road construction,while reversing the successful public transport approach employed in Canberra until the late1980s.• Hobart has relatively high rates of walking, but public transport has been declining, and caruse growing, since the Tasman Bridge reopened in 1977. The current rate of car driving is thehighest on record. No serious attempt has been made to improve the attractiveness of publictransport, while facilities for pedestrians also require attention.

Policy implicationsThese findings show that the time has come for a radical reorientation of transport policy inAustralian cities. In the past, policy makers who favoured roads could claim to be followingpublic preferences, expressed in mode share trends, but now that public transport is gainingground at the expense of the car, policy makers are still stubbornly clinging to road-basedsolutions. The recent revival of public transport has, except in Perth, been achieved withrelatively little policy support, suggesting that serious pro-transit policies could creategreenhouse gases and oil security than continued road-building, which will only add to therising car volumes choking our cities.The census figures suggest that Australian cities, while lacking the urban density of Europeancities, can achieve European-level mode shares by providing European-quality publictransport, along with substantially improved conditions for pedestrians. State and territorygovernments need to change their transport policies, which remain dominated by roadbuilding.They also need to create effective capacity for transport governance, management,planning and research to ensure that investment in sustainable transport delivers value formoney. The Federal Government’s Infrastructure Australia agency proposes a national debateabout public transport: we agree, but argue that this debate must include public transport’srole in reducing the need for major investment in urban roads.

Some may be offended with the statement "Cyling is of negligible importance for work trips..." which does not surprise me at all. I was surprised however with the reported contribution of walking.

I was also surprised at Canberra's bad rating afa car transport. But on reflection it may be consistant with my opinion that if enough money is poured into highly useable fast roads then people will mostly use it regardless of most other factors. Possibly why Perth has trouble filling better quality seats on cleaner transport than some other cities do with grotty old fleets.

I suppose that my policy advice would be for cities to maintain at the current level what roads they have, let any increased demand flow elsewhere and fund and develop those "elsewheres" accordingly. Unfortunately a recipe for electoral disaster.

ColinOldnCranky wrote:Some may be offended with the statement "Cyling is of negligible importance for work trips..." which does not surprise me at all. I was surprised however with the reported contribution of walking.

the author of the study is obsessed with PT and i suspect is jealous of the increased attention given to cycling infrastructure. there are dozens of these boffins with an agenda to push, cloaking their bias under the guise of impartial academic research.

cycling isn't "negligible" compared to PT - contributing 12 and 5% of what train travel does in melbourne and sydney respectively. that's huge, given the scale of cost attributed to supporting those numbers of rail travellers, let alone the same numbers of motorists.

the claim about cycling acting as a substitute for walking is unsubstantiated nonsense - i can't think of anyone who i know who cycles to work who would otherwise walk. there must be some people in that category, but really, he is just showing his colours.

If there is a conspiracy against cyclist by transport theorists it is certainly lwo on the radar. I don't think there is some transport analysts agenda against cyclists.

You have selected one component as a base - trains. So while a tenth of something may seem big, it is less so when it is a tenth of something else that is a tenth of the bigger. Compare cycling to the overall and it is still piddlingly small. Yes, it is increasing by decent percentages but at this point is it still only by decent percentages of a small base.

More importantly than comparing the raw counts, the mode question in the Census does not factor in the distances travelled or in what parts of a strained network they occur. A single trip on a train is likely to be far far longer than a single trip on a bike, especially in large cities and where people move long distances to work. Perhaps one train trip should be equated to something like 4 bike trips.

(The Census question is insufficient not just for reasons of distance. It also understates things like walking and riding as the respondent only ticks the MAIN mode. Cycling to trains is not counted. Ditto walking and driving and busing.)

Of course, I would make the same observation about walking trips. I can quite safely say that the number of people walking from Mandurah to the Perth CBD would not only be negligable. It would be close to nix.

Of course, as much of those short trips by cyclists will be by inner city dwellers who are going the relatively short distances to the CBD, then the value of them is greater than the average. Simply because it is more expensive and more difficult to grow the capacity in those nearer locations. And the same for pedestrians. So, a couple of thousand cyclists riding the last eight or ten km to the CBD could be responsible for negating the need for another lane on each side of a freeway at a place in the network where the capacity is already insufficient. The couple of thousand could be described as "insignificant" on the simple Census counts. But with a more nuanced assessement the value of those riders goes up and up.

I think if they are awry in there assessment it is in treating one walking trip to one car trip or one train trip or one bike trip. Sorta grossly overstates the walking contirbution a lot IMO. Besides the pedestrian count may simply be telling us more about changing social patterns where a great number of people are living closer to where they work than they did in the past.

And, as you point out, the cost of cycle infrastructure is relatively small. (Insignificant? ) I don't expect the authors need to weight for that though - let the actual planners do the cost-benefits case by case.

While cycling is certainly good for the broader community, we need to be wary of overstating it's significance. Public Transport is deserving of all the attention that it can get and is a clear way to transport people in the tens of thousands over quite significant commuting distances in a city.

colin, that's a well thought out post and i agree with most of it. but you do contradict yourself slightly when you correctly point out that what counts is mode shift in congested areas of the transport network - i.e. the CBD. in that context, where cycle commuting is concentrated, its contribution is significant.

i support PT and am not trying to talk it down. but as you also correctly point out, cycling infrastructure is pretty cheap. unfortunately, PT infrastructure is horrendously expensive. while i see investment in PT as necessary, despite the high cost, investing in cycling infrastructure is an obvious measure which can be done in the short term (unlike PT) with a very high Benefit-Cost ratio. so in essence, the study is quite wrong about dismissing cycling.

I think the statement implying some sort of conspiracy against walkers

one possible reason is that cycling is by far the most male-dominatedtransport mode, reflecting the gender composition of the transport planning profession

makes it quite understandable however to question them. It is a stab in the dark no more likely or worthy of comment than a dozen other stabs in the dark that others could make. It would have been better left out of the report. They offer no evidence to favour their particular stab in the dark.

Last edited by ColinOldnCranky on Wed Jan 23, 2013 2:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

jules21 wrote:colin, that's a well thought out post and i agree with most of it. but you do contradict yourself slightly when you correctly point out that what counts is mode shift in congested areas of the transport network - i.e. the CBD. in that context, where cycle commuting is concentrated, its contribution is significant.

colinoldncranky wrote:So, a couple of thousand cyclists riding the last eight or ten km to the CBD could be responsible for negating the need for another lane on each side of a freeway at a place in the network where the capacity is already insufficient. The couple of thousand could be described as "insignificant" on the simple Census counts. But with a more nuanced assessement the value of those riders goes up and up.

and therein is the value of riders. That last several kms of car infrastructure that is overused to the point of gridlock. And which can't be addressed except with works that, even by road cost standards, are excessive.

One lane of freeway just before gridlock (ie maximum able to be carried at all) is AROUND 2000 people per hour if in cars. In the case of Perth, adding just ONE extra set of carriages (six carriage set) each peak-hour carries the equivalent of a lane. If we can get two thousand cyclists an hour on a cycleway up to the task it also equates to a freeway lane.

What does it cost to add 8km of lane to a fattish freeway in densely packed inner-city? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. What does it cost to build proper cycle paths? Around $50,000 to $100,000 per km, higher price being affected mostly by overcoming impediments to traffic separation (according to comment by WA DoT, late 2012). If you already have a separated path (the case in Perth next to freeways) then the cost is just the cost of widening it, so it would be at the lower end of the scale.

The current widening of the freeway section from Leach Hwy to Roe Highway with some works related to Fiona Stanley Hospital (parking?) was estimated at $58m plus two years of traffic disruption and rear-enders. Ouch. For 4.5 km that is not even that close to the the CBD.

Last edited by ColinOldnCranky on Wed Jan 23, 2013 3:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.

ColinOldnCranky wrote: I think the statement implying some sort of conspiracy against walkers

one possible reason is that cycling is by far the most male-dominatedtransport mode, reflecting the gender composition of the transport planning profession

makes it quite understandable however to question them. It is a stab in the dark no more likely or worthy of comment than a dozen other stabs in the dark that others could make. It would have been better left out of the report. They offer no evidence to favour their particular stab in the dark.

the author has form. he was recently shown the door at one academic institution and now works at another. the problem is, once you forfeit your independence and objectivity, you tend to also forfeit your credibility.

ColinOldnCranky wrote:One lane of freeway just before gridlock (ie maximum able to be carried at all) is AROUND 2000 people per hour if in cars. In the case of Perth, adding just ONE extra set of carriages (six carriage set) each peak-hour carries the equivalent of a lane. If we can get two thousand cyclists an hour on a cycleway up to the task it also equates to a freeway lane.

Bicycle Vic did a study which showed that the shared path along the Monash fwy was carrying as many people as the increase in car occupants resulting from the additional freeway lane, the latter at a cost of $1bn. it's a joke isn't it?

Cycling currently plays only a minor role in reducing car use in Australian cities. Although it is important to provide safe, convenient facilities for cyclists, some of the extravagant rhetoric currently circulating about cycling needs to be given a rest. Policy-makers need to pay attention to the extremely restricted constituency that currently dominates the cycling ‘market’ (mainly male, inner city professionals), and develop measures to make cycling a viable option for a wider section of the community, as is the case in the best European cities. This should mean an end to policies such as the recent trend to combine bike and bus lanes in such a way that buses must weave back and forth across cycle lanes to reach stops, which endangers cyclists, delays buses and adds to driver stress.

Author showing his true colours in the conclusions on page 29. Try as I might I could not find the evidence presented to support the highlighted statement.

This study is bullsh!t!! And it comes from someone at the RMIT . He really needs to open the door and have a look outside. A very high proportion of the cyclists coming into and out of the CBD from the northern suburbs (right past RMIT) are women, higher proportions than almost any other city in Australia. Make cycling safe and easy and women will take it up. It is actually a quite empowering transport mode for many women.

Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.

ColinOldnCranky wrote:Some may be offended with the statement "Cyling is of negligible importance for work trips..." which does not surprise me at all. I was surprised however with the reported contribution of walking.

the author of the study is obsessed with PT and i suspect is jealous of the increased attention given to cycling infrastructure

PTUA's credibility has just taken a huge leap downwards in my estimation. Seems Paul Mees is trying to join forces with Howdy Scruloose and the Pedestrians Front of Australia.

Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.

I think it's a good study - especially if it galvanises the cycling community into a unified voice - rather than a whole lot of groups who sometimes take shots at achievements others have been able to get. Eg, that recent BikeEast and BikeSydney document which moaned in a sour grapes manner about Western Sydney getting cycle ways, which apparently weren't used much.

Trains are for me still a much better transport option than cycling. Even if I rode at best speed and had a direct off road route with no stopping, I wouldn't beat the train. I'd love to be able to try it, but proposals of veloways by BikeEast and BikeSydney in their most recent joint document are improbable and probably would be as unused as the Western Sydney cycle ways they so much disliked on page 20 final paragraph (using old data for justify the sour grapes).

And only investing in areas already showing a high use of cycling? Are they for real? Or is that a synonym for give us all the riches and stuff everyone else? If you don't build infrastructure where it doesn't already exist - how do you attract new people to cycling.

Excuse me if I seem jaded and cynical of all these papers that are presented all the time. Maybe just once, someone might do one for real that has some teeth and might deliver results before the next election (rather than being an election promise).

Cycling will not become a major way to commute in this country in the medium term, I think that is just reality. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be catered for, especially since it is cheap infrastructure, but the big ticket infrastructure issues are elsewhere. In any case, we have bicycle infrastructure, it's called roads. We ride road vehicles, and the more of us ride them on roads the less we need specific infrastructure.

The big issue in urban transport in Australia is cars or trains. The problem with trams (although this can be overcome by more separated tracks) and buses is that the very traffic congestion you try and avoid by not taking the car is what is holding up your tram or bus. Compare the time it takes a No 19 or 67 tram in Melbourne to get to the city now compared with 20 years ago. Trains have the ability to move large numbers of people quickly over long distances. One train of 6 carriages can take 1,000 people. The issue is that we need to get governments to stop their insane, and insanely expensive, road tunnels and freeways, and instead invest in trains. In Melbourne the last time a new train line was built was in the 1930s. We need more train lines, a new signalling system and a better way to get trains in and out of the city (there were more train movements in Melbourne per day in the 1960s than is possible now - the infrastructure has got worse). Despite the willful neglect of the train system it is getting more passengers. Imagine what we could do if it was expanded and improved. The problems with cars are obvious: congestion, pollution, safety etc etc etc.

I'll still ride my bike to work, but the real solution is large capacity quick public transport, and that means mainly trains and maybe trams (some have a capacity of 200 so they can move a lot of people, but traffic is a big issue). I consider buses a niche add on, they have small capacity and are too easily stuck in traffic, only good for feeders to mass transit systems.

Cycling currently plays only a minor role in reducing car use in Australian cities. Although it is important to provide safe, convenient facilities for cyclists, some of the extravagant rhetoric currently circulating about cycling needs to be given a rest. Policy-makers need to pay attention to the extremely restricted constituency that currently dominates the cycling ‘market’ (mainly male, inner city professionals), and develop measures to make cycling a viable option for a wider section of the community, as is the case in the best European cities. This should mean an end to policies such as the recent trend to combine bike and bus lanes in such a way that buses must weave back and forth across cycle lanes to reach stops, which endangers cyclists, delays buses and adds to driver stress.

Author showing his true colours in the conclusions on page 29. Try as I might I could not find the evidence presented to support the highlighted statement.

I haven't any evidence either but it gels with the stereotype. And while it is a stereotype my own observations sit well with it. I think that they are right in that the appeal of cycling needs to be broadened a lot.

However the authors do seem to stray a fair bit from the data they are using.

The report needs to be taken with a big grain of salt as it is based on a very simple and insufficient set of data. (Earlier discussion between myself and Jules21.) Unfortunately though that data set has the one advantage of extending over a long period of time at regular intervals asked in a consistent manner,

DavidS wrote:Cycling will not become a major way to commute in this country in the medium term, I think that is just reality. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be catered for, especially since it is cheap infrastructure, but the big ticket infrastructure issues are elsewhere. In any case, we have bicycle infrastructure, it's called roads. We ride road vehicles, and the more of us ride them on roads the less we need specific infrastructure.

The big issue in urban transport in Australia is cars or trains. The problem with trams (although this can be overcome by more separated tracks) and buses is that the very traffic congestion you try and avoid by not taking the car is what is holding up your tram or bus. Compare the time it takes a No 19 or 67 tram in Melbourne to get to the city now compared with 20 years ago. Trains have the ability to move large numbers of people quickly over long distances. One train of 6 carriages can take 1,000 people. The issue is that we need to get governments to stop their insane, and insanely expensive, road tunnels and freeways, and instead invest in trains. In Melbourne the last time a new train line was built was in the 1930s. We need more train lines, a new signalling system and a better way to get trains in and out of the city (there were more train movements in Melbourne per day in the 1960s than is possible now - the infrastructure has got worse). Despite the willful neglect of the train system it is getting more passengers. Imagine what we could do if it was expanded and improved. The problems with cars are obvious: congestion, pollution, safety etc etc etc.

I'll still ride my bike to work, but the real solution is large capacity quick public transport, and that means mainly trains and maybe trams (some have a capacity of 200 so they can move a lot of people, but traffic is a big issue). I consider buses a niche add on, they have small capacity and are too easily stuck in traffic, only good for feeders to mass transit systems.

DS

Apart from the bit pointed out by Pete, I support and endorse Daves post 95%As an insider, I can say that a new signalling system will do little to improve service provision. Small incremental improvements to existing equipment and practices will. What we do need is to get rid of all single line sections, (token or non token) to remove major bottlenecks on certain lines and most importantly, remove-as much as physically possible-ALL at grade junctions. Purchasing rolling stock with fewer passenger doors to increase seat numbers has not increased system throughput as extra standover time is needed at stations for loading and unloading which effectively limits the number of trains that can operate in any section of track at a given time.

Shaun

...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.London Boy 29/12/2011

Cycling currently plays only a minor role in reducing car use in Australian cities. Although it is important to provide safe, convenient facilities for cyclists, some of the extravagant rhetoric currently circulating about cycling needs to be given a rest. Policy-makers need to pay attention to the extremely restricted constituency that currently dominates the cycling ‘market’ (mainly male, inner city professionals), and develop measures to make cycling a viable option for a wider section of the community, as is the case in the best European cities. This should mean an end to policies such as the recent trend to combine bike and bus lanes in such a way that buses must weave back and forth across cycle lanes to reach stops, which endangers cyclists, delays buses and adds to driver stress.

Author showing his true colours in the conclusions on page 29. Try as I might I could not find the evidence presented to support the highlighted statement.

What exactly did he say that was wrong?

- spot on re: the commuter cycling 'market' at the present time- spot on re: the need to make cycling a viable option for a wider section of the community- spot on re: the danger and inefficiency of combined cycle/bus lanes (or cycle lanes that run on the kerb side of bus lanes on heavily patronised routes)

That paragraph certainly reads to me like he supports the growth of cycling as a legit mode of transport.

But hey let's just bash the other modes instead, that's much more constructive...

KenGS wrote:According to Paul Mees the City Loop was a waste of money also

I don't know if I would go as far to say it was a waste of money but it is certainly a big contributor to the problems on the rail network at the moment and a barrier to getting the most out of the existing infrastructure.

ColinOldnCranky wrote:]...... I was surprised however with the reported contribution of walking.

I used to walk to work rather than ride just 4-5kms - got more exercise that way. When I got a bike and started riding I instantly put on 3-5kgs and took up running every day to control my weight whilst riding to work to save time.

I know people who walk to the CBD (Melbourne) from the inner suburbs 'cos it's just simpler (and safer ...?) than cycling. Some listen to podcasts or audio books along the way.

If I was still working, then under 4-5kms I would walk rather than ride.

How close do you want them? Much of the suburban network is already at minimum overlaps now. ATP and similar systems do have major advantages over fixed block working but a network wide refit would mean no freeway upgrades for a decade or more to pay for it AND be political suicide considering the power of the roads lobby and their mates in the media.Personally, if we want to go down the very high tech route, we may as well consider removing the human element from the train as well. Seems to work for Skytrain among others.

...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.London Boy 29/12/2011

DavidS wrote: In Melbourne the last time a new train line was built was in the 1930s.

I think you'd have to include the City Loop as a new line. It was such a revolutionary development for the whole rail system, and finally opened in 1981.

But yeah - more lines. And in particular more duplicated/triplicated lines with reduced/removed level crossings. Expensive, but have you looked at what a kilometre of freeway costs??

I think the loop was a disaster, putting all the lines on 4 tracks and screwing up Flinders St.

Interesting to hear from Mulger Bill, from what I had heard the signalling system desperately needs replacing but I also thought it would improve things. If the distance between trains is already small then it isn't safe to make it closer, those things don't stop in a hurry. Never driven a train but used to drive trams, being on rails certainly complicates things.

I would agree that the W class trams do load and unload much quicker. There are a number of factors: wide doors, only 2 steps, but one of the biggest factors was that we used to not have to wait for the doors to close to get moving. When I drove trams, mainly W class, we would be opening the doors as we got into the stop and closing them while we moved off.